It's interesting that a Gnostic like Tatian in putting together his harmonisation, the Diatessaron, accepted the Four Gospels. Irenaeus just so happens to be the disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna who was a disciple of the Apostle John who was a disciple of Jesus. (Funny how Muslims seem to believe in chains of narration only when it suits them.)

The four gospels are not the Injil.

Since Jesus said that the Messenger coming after Him will remind us of EVERYTHING that Jesus said, and the Qur'an says NOBODY can alter God's Word, it is Muslims who have a major problem in this area as you have no authentic Injeel to give us, especially when the Qur'an says that the Injeel was intact in the 7th century.

With all of these fragments lying around who knows what is real and what is fake? As for the religion of Christianity and Roman Pagasnism merging, look at the hard facts.... there are a lot of paganism 'in-built' in Christianity.

This hyper-scepticism ignores textual cricisim and the fact that the 'fragments' are a lot less fragmentary than you think. You need to check out the tables at the back of Kur and Barbara Aland's book on the Text of the New Testament.

I don't have to be at the Council of Nicea to understand how Christianity became corrupted with the Trinitarian doctrine. Again look at the facts and hear what the scholars in Christianity are saying.

One: These scholars aren't real Christians. Two: Scholars, include Bart Ehrman, tell lies. His book the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was rejected by a majority of scholars including Atheists. He often ignores other reasons why certain textual errors occur. Muslims who use Ehrman are extremely unwise to use him, for he damages Islam. He thinks Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. He believes Jesus died on the Cross. Yet Muslims think his writings disprove the Crucifixion. Please play closer attention to what Ehrman is saying.

Three: You are ignoring what the decrees from the Council of Nicaea actually say. Get A New Eusebius and read the original Nicaean documentation. Stop relying on bogus claims from a 19th century seance!

I expected this sort of response. This is the typical Christian response. What does Ehrman's agnosticism have to do with his credentials? Do you think that attacking his beliefs serves as an effective refutation of his claims? I think it is obvious that you didn't even bother to read my response of just glanced over it. I know this because you essentially repeated the same arguments which I responded to. Case in point:

When you read Ehrman, he clearly has an agenda. But if Muslims take what he has to say to their logical conclusion, you would have to abandon Islam too. Why use a scholar who employs arguments which damage Islam?

I already dealt with this matter! Blomberg has simply repeated the same tired argument about multiple manuscripts somehow being "proof" that the New Testament is a trust-worthy document. His proof? That there are 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT. But what he neglects to mention, as do all Christians, is that the vast majority of these manuscripts are from medieval times, no where near the time of Jesus or the disciples. Even Bloomberg admits that "none of the autographs remain"!

None of the autographsof ANY ancient work including the Qur'an exist either. And remember, the Hadiths indicate that the preservation of the Qur'an failed at the autograph stage, hence why Abu Bakr then Uthman commissioned Zaid twice, and why Caliph Umar complained from the pulpit about a lost Qur'anic passage which is still not included. The 5700 manuscripts are from the first 1000 years. This is extraordinary in ancient manuscripts, as Caesar's earliest copies are from 1000 years after his time. Compared to everything else which is zero, the first 1000 years of the New Testament is extraordinarily rich. The earliest manuscripts of the first four centuries of course are going to be more important than the later ones, especially as around 900 there was an explosion of copying of Byzantine manuscripts on the orders of the Byzantine Emperors. Take note that the eclectic New Testaments (UBS4, NA27) use mostly MSS from the first 5 centuries. There is no cover-up going on here at all.

Here, Blomberg commits another common Christian fallacy. He tries to establish that P52 (the manuscript he is referring to) has been dated to "around A.D. 125". Yet, no scholar of paleography would assign a specific year to an ancient manuscript. More often, scholars give a range of dates. In the case of P52, that range is 125-150 CE. As Brent Nongbri noted in his article "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel", published in the 2005 edition of the journal "Harvard Theological Review":

That's why Blomberg says 'ABOUT AD 125'. Again, you are reading cover-ups where there arent' any, and indeed Blomberg fully expects people to know this. Kurt and Barbara Aland, less conservative than Blomberg, actually date the fragment to AD 110.

What really happens is that scholars pin different dates then haggle through academic papers to get a particular date range, usually 30 years or so. The same process will happen with this new fragment of Mark dated from the 1st century due to be published next year. This is completely normal. Big deal.

But this "first-century testimony" is non-existent! Just because they were written in the 1st century does not mean they were not altered later on. Therefore, in the absence of 1st-century manuscripts, the Christian claim that the New Testament is reliable is a leap of faith, not evidence. Moreover, the extant manuscripts shows unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered. It is absurd to claim to otherwise. So much for an "inspired" text.

If so, then all faith in history, including your Qur'an and Hadith, has no basis. Knowledge has no basis. The problem is that you have no evidence of such altering and it would take a huge conspiracy Empire-wide given how diverse the geography of the Christian manuscripts are. Considering that these diverse manuscripts pre-date any Imperial intervention, it should be obvious to anyone that no such conspiracy occurred, and that it was impossible for a hiding, persecuted, scattered Church to have the resources or a single authority to make this possible. The early papyri evidence well pre-dating the 4th century shows this to be the case.

Also, the historical evidence suggests that some Jews were actually awaiting the arrival of two or even three Messiahs, and not one Messiah who would suffer and die for our sins! The Dead Sea Scrolls illustrate this fact quite clearly. As Geza Vermes notes:

This is a red herring, as both Christianity and Islam only believe in One Messiah. Jesus is Al-Masih in your own Qur'an so don't contradict your own religion if you wish to be consistent with the rules. To refer to the sectarian writings of a maverick movement within Judaism, Essenism, over a belief about the Messiah which is different to both Christianity and Islam is a complete red herring.

And many of these were proven to be later forgeries! Moreover, second-century "testimony" does not prove anything about a man who lived in the first-century and documents which purport to summarize his life and teachings are also all from the second century, several decades after he lived.

I could say the same thing about the Hadith, except in your case it is three centuries, and far from needing a chain of narration of about 100 narrators, we only need a chain of two or three or indeed none at all. ;o)

Well summarised Salam Erin. Special pleading and double standards abound . Its obvious the Ijil Mohamad had was the same as the NT.

The new user name? ‘Experiential” reminds me my position is based on relationship with The Most High God. That the OT and NT principles I defend are more than just a cerebral or intellectual thing but rather something experienced first hand and daily.

From looking at some of your other posts I notice you still use sarcasm and subtle abuse as a strategy. I expect your posts to conform to the cordial tone the moderators expect.

In regards to Dr Puin and the Sanaa manuscripts. You are confusing inspired with infallible and / or inerrant. The Bible is inspired by God but written by man. Of course it is not inerrant. Correct me if I’m wrong but Muslims believe the Quran to be the literal, inerrant, divine, perfectly preserved, and infallible word. If this is the case then the issue of mans influence on the Quran compared to the Bible is more a problem for you than me. The problematic facts remain. Mans influence is obvious and this divine position just doesn’t hold to modern skeptical criticism from people such as Dr Puin or Christoph Luxemberg (a pseudonym of course due to his fear of being murdered by some Islamofascist Jihadist.) The Quran, like the sun, sinks into a muddy pond.

Regarding Ehrman. The point still stands. The Muslim lack of scholarly ability is obvious. Why is Muslim scholarship so weak you have to rely on Western traditions?

It displays the Muslim lack of freedom of thought and speech. Free thinkers in Islam don’t tend to avoid a fatwa for long.

Ehrman when asked if he has considered undertaking a critical assessment of the Quran is quoted as saying something to the effect that he values his life too much to do that. What does that tell you?

This thread is titled “Where is the Injil?”Ehrman believes in the crucifixion of Jesus (unlike the Muslim view) and in the appendix to “Misquoting Jesus” Ehrman states “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament”. Obviously Ehrman would agree that the Injil Mohammad had is essentially the same as the New Testament.

Your reply about the validity of the New Testament and the number of manuscript copies is the usual Muslim polemic. The NT reliability is radial not linear. Its not a simplistic linear, telephone tag type of transmission but radial, like spokes of a wheel. And not just one wheel but many, all of which validate one another. The wide geographical spread of the texts combined with the sheer number validate the reconstructed text. Currently we have more than 120 manuscripts from the first 300 years. While this may sound small it is significant, and the number is constantly growing. Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of 1800 pages of text.

Dating manuscript P52 ? I’ll see your paleography expert and raise you one ! The point remains. For most other ancient works, a far longer period of time elapses between the originals and the oldest existing copies.

You said “Moreover, the extant manuscripts show unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered (from 1st Century manuscripts)”. The first Century NT testimony exists. It’s the validity that you are questioning. Daniel Wallace has estimated that there is only 2 percent minor changes (2 percent quantity of syntax, 5-6 percent meaning, but with no doctrinally significant changes) from the earliest 120 manuscripts to those from the Middle Ages.

Anyway you are missing the point. Compare this with the typical situation for other ancient histories and biographies. The detailed life of Alexander the Great, for instance which most historians believe can be reconstructed with a fair amount of accuracy, depends on Arrian and Plutarch's late first and early second-century biographies of a man who died in 323 B.C. So the history of Alexander the Great is a leap of faith too? As are Greco / Roman concepts of democracy, medical ethics and mathematics?

Regarding Bloomburgs comment on the oral traditions and the so-called "hard sayings" of Jesus, you say he is blowing hot air due to having no First Century manuscripts. In the light of hermeneutical criticism Bloomburg is far more qualified than you. Besides this is special pleading. There are no original copies of your Quran.

In terms of the SecondCenturyChurch leaders quoting from earlier Gospel manuscripts you avoided the point. Their testimony validates the earlier texts. Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius are examples. From the 27 NT books they quote from 25.

It's interesting that a Gnostic like Tatian in putting together his harmonisation, the Diatessaron, accepted the Four Gospels. Irenaeus just so happens to be the disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna who was a disciple of the Apostle John who was a disciple of Jesus. (Funny how Muslims seem to believe in chains of narration only when it suits them.)

The chain of narration in the Hadiths are people who knew each other and the words passed down from father to son. You simply don't have a chain of narration. Iranaeus lived in Lyon far away from the hot bed of Christianity and could only know Christianity from hear say.

Since Jesus said that the Messenger coming after Him will remind us of EVERYTHING that Jesus said, and the Qur'an says NOBODY can alter God's Word, it is Muslims who have a major problem in this area as you have no authentic Injeel to give us, especially when the Qur'an says that the Injeel was intact in the 7th century.

The gospels we ahve today were selected from a vast array of works. So we don't know what is authentic and what is false.

This hyper-scepticism ignores textual cricisim and the fact that the 'fragments' are a lot less fragmentary than you think. You need to check out the tables at the back of Kur and Barbara Aland's book on the Text of the New Testament.

So is it possible for somebody to put all these 'bits' together and form the words of Jesus (pbuh)?

One: These scholars aren't real Christians. Two: Scholars, include Bart Ehrman, tell lies. His book the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was rejected by a majority of scholars including Atheists. He often ignores other reasons why certain textual errors occur. Muslims who use Ehrman are extremely unwise to use him, for he damages Islam. He thinks Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. He believes Jesus died on the Cross. Yet Muslims think his writings disprove the Crucifixion. Please play closer attention to what Ehrman is saying.

Three: You are ignoring what the decrees from the Council of Nicaea actually say. Get A New Eusebius and read the original Nicaean documentation. Stop relying on bogus claims from a 19th century seance!

Quote: In my post I did mention those verses from the Quran that clearly state the alterations to what we now collectively call the Bible.

Response: --- I thought I answered these verses a few posts above, where it says, "They threw it behind their backs." --- That didn't alter any Scriptures, just what they said about it, and the lies they might have told about it.

--- When I read in the Quran that The Angel Gabiel confirmed the Gospel, and that God preserves it in safety, I believe it.

When you say, "No, that refers to the original writings," ---(Of which you have never seen, so that you can say,--- "Here it says this, and now it says that.")

--- Have you not taken those portions of the Quran and thrown them behind your back?
Whereas, that doeesn't change the Quran, does it? --- It only proves that you don't want to believe it.

However, I was told "If you want to learn about Islam, read the Quran."
--- I read it and I believe it.

So show us a verse where the Quran says "The Scripture has been altered."

It's interesting that a Gnostic like Tatian in putting together his
harmonisation, the Diatessaron, accepted the Four Gospels. Irenaeus
just so happens to be the disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna who was a
disciple of the Apostle John who was a disciple of Jesus. (Funny how
Muslims seem to believe in chains of narration only when it suits them.)

Except that this "chain of narration" is entirely fictional and based on zero evidence. Anybody can make up a chain of narration. Authenticating it is an entirely different issue.

Here is the supposed "chain of narration" you appealed to:

John - Polycarp - Irenaeus

The problem is that Polycarp being a disciple of John is based not on Polycarp's own testimony but that of Irenaeus! We know this because in a surviving letter of Polycarp, he never refers to John as his teacher. For example, in his letter to the "Phillipians", Polycarp does not even mention John by name, while specifically naming Paul:

"I exhort you all therefore to be obedient unto the word of
righteousness and to practice all endurance, which also ye saw with
your own eyes in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus, yea and
in others also who came from among yourselves, as well as in Paul
himself and the rest of the Apostles;" [1]

If John was an actual teacher of Polycarp, one would think that Polycarp would have mentioned it. Yet, he did not. Therefore, there is a break in the chain. Such a chain would have been rejected by scholars of Hadiths, yet Christian blindly accept it!

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

Since Jesus said that the Messenger coming after Him will remind us of
EVERYTHING that Jesus said, and the Qur'an says NOBODY can alter God's
Word, it is Muslims who have a major problem in this area as you have no
authentic Injeel to give us, especially when the Qur'an says that the
Injeel was intact in the 7th century.

You should stick to quoting your Bible and leave the Quran to us Muslims. The Quran makes it clear that Christians have strayed from Jesus' message. Also, no where does it say that the Injil "was intact in the 7th century". It refers to some of the authentic teachings which have survived in the corrupted texts we know today.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

This hyper-scepticism ignores textual cricisim and the fact that the
'fragments' are a lot less fragmentary than you think. You need to
check out the tables at the back of Kur and Barbara Aland's book on the
Text of the New Testament.

Fragments are fragments. Deal with it. For example, P52 which we will discuss later, is not even a full page [2]! The point is that even the surviving manuscripts represent only a fraction of the entire text, nor do they agree with each other in many cases.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

One: These scholars aren't real Christians. Two: Scholars, include Bart
Ehrman, tell lies. His book the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was
rejected by a majority of scholars including Atheists. He often ignores
other reasons why certain textual errors occur. Muslims who use Ehrman
are extremely unwise to use him, for he damages Islam. He thinks Jesus
was a failed apocalyptic prophet. He believes Jesus died on the
Cross. Yet Muslims think his writings disprove the Crucifixion. Please
play closer attention to what Ehrman is saying.

If it is so easy to label Ehrman's works as "lies", then it should be equally easy to actually refute his claims. Yet, so far, all you have done is to incessantly attack his character. Talk about an agenda! Can you do me a favor and identify some of these "lies"?

Additionally, Ehrman's personal beliefs are not the issue here. We are
interested in his expertise on New Testament textual criticism because
he is an authority on that subject. His authority is not on Islam or religion in general.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

Three: You are ignoring what the decrees from the Council of Nicaea
actually say. Get A New Eusebius and read the original Nicaean
documentation. Stop relying on bogus claims from a 19th century seance!

Another typical Christian response! You question the credibility of modern scholars when it suits your purpose, without actually refuting their assertions.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

When you read Ehrman, he clearly has an agenda. But if Muslims take
what he has to say to their logical conclusion, you would have to
abandon Islam too. Why use a scholar who employs arguments which damage
Islam?

Ehrman "has an agenda"? And I suppose Christian authors don't?

Ehrman is a scholar of early Christian history and New Testament textual criticism. He has no expertise on Islam, nor does he speak Arabic. His opinions on religion in general are his own. I referred to his works because the issue is the New Testament, and that is what he is a scholar of.

So far, neither you nor Experiential have actually offered a valid response to Ehrman's assertions. All you have done is attack his credentials.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

None of the autographsof ANY ancient work including the Qur'an
exist either. And remember, the Hadiths indicate that the preservation
of the Qur'an failed at the autograph stage, hence why Abu Bakr then
Uthman commissioned Zaid twice, and why Caliph Umar complained from the
pulpit about a lost Qur'anic passage which is still not included. The
5700 manuscripts are from the first 1000 years. This is extraordinary
in ancient manuscripts, as Caesar's earliest copies are from 1000 years
after his time. Compared to everything else which is zero, the first
1000 years of the New Testament is extraordinarily rich. The earliest
manuscripts of the first four centuries of course are going to be more
important than the later ones, especially as around 900 there was an
explosion of copying of Byzantine manuscripts on the orders of the
Byzantine Emperors. Take note that the eclectic New Testaments (UBS4,
NA27) use mostly MSS from the first 5 centuries. There is no cover-up
going on here at all.

As usual of Christian apologists, you change the subject to the Quran and make vague claims with no supporting evidence of supposed problems in the Quran's preservation. The simple fact that you fail to realize is that unlike the Bible, the Quran has extant manuscripts from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar and the Quran has been memorized from its inception.

Then you essentially repeat the same claim about there being 5000 NT manuscripts, but did not add anything that changes the fact that the vast majority of these manuscripts are from medieval times! These manuscripts are simply copies of copies. Without the originals or even manuscripts that can reasonably be placed in the time of disciples, there is no way to verify if these 5000 copies are reliable or authentic. Moreover, we know that early Christians forged many documents in the names of famous people, such as the disciples, so it is entirely possible that the gospels which bear the names of the disciples or their companions were simply early forgeries as well. Of course, the canonical Gospels are anonymous and always have been. Later Christians simply may have believed they were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, without knowing if they were right or wrong.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

That's why Blomberg says 'ABOUT AD 125'. Again, you are reading
cover-ups where there arent' any, and indeed Blomberg fully expects
people to know this. Kurt and Barbara Aland, less conservative than
Blomberg, actually date the fragment to AD 110.

Saying "about AD 125" means it was written very close to that year. If he was honest, he would have said the same thing the majority of scholars say, which is 125-150. He was clearly trying to assign the earliest possible date. The fact that the Alands date it earlier just proves my point even further. It is virtually impossible to give an exact date to ancient manuscripts, yet Christians try to do just that. Blomberg is an example.

Also, Brent Nongbri has criticized the attempts by the Alands to assign an earlier date to P52. According to Nongbri:

What really happens is that scholars pin different dates then haggle
through academic papers to get a particular date range, usually 30 years
or so. The same process will happen with this new fragment of Mark
dated from the 1st century due to be published next year. This is
completely normal. Big deal.

It is a big deal. It is a deliberate attempt at altering the facts for the purposes of advancing a certain point of view. In other words, it is the result of an "agenda". Funny how you criticize Ehrman for having an "agenda" but when Christians do it, it's not a "big deal".

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

If so, then all faith in history, including your Qur'an and Hadith, has
no basis. Knowledge has no basis. The problem is that you have no
evidence of such altering and it would take a huge conspiracy
Empire-wide given how diverse the geography of the Christian manuscripts
are. Considering that these diverse manuscripts pre-date any Imperial
intervention, it should be obvious to anyone that no such conspiracy
occurred, and that it was impossible for a hiding, persecuted, scattered
Church to have the resources or a single authority to make this
possible. The early papyri evidence well pre-dating the 4th century
shows this to be the case.

You speak out of ignorance. Did you read my response to Experiential where I showed that there is 1st century testimony to the Islamic sources? In addition, diverting the dilemma of the New Testament to other issues does not solve the dilemma of the New Testament. You are simply trying to distract attention from the main issue.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

This is a red herring, as both Christianity and
Islam only believe in One Messiah. Jesus is Al-Masih in your own Qur'an
so don't contradict your own religion if you wish to be consistent with
the rules. To refer to the sectarian writings of a maverick movement
within Judaism, Essenism, over a belief about the Messiah which is
different to both Christianity and Islam is a complete red herring.

You are quick to jump the gun and make silly statements. If you had read my response to Experiential, you would have realized the context of my reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the beliefs of the Essenes.

Moreover, don't tell me about my own religion. Stick to your own.

Your entire response to the belief of the two Messiahs is a red herring in itself because it ignores the fact that a fellow Christian, Experiential, attempted to appeal to Jewish traditions to "authenticate" the Christian tradition. I showed why that is a double-edged sword.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

I could say the same thing about the Hadith, except in your case it is
three centuries, and far from needing a chain of narration of about 100
narrators, we only need a chain of two or three or indeed none at all.
;o)

Again, speaking out of ignorance and making unsubstantiated claims about other religions does not help your cause!

Also, just "saying" something about the Hadiths without proof is a desperate effort at best. The Islamic tradition had a very complicated process of authenticating hadiths. It recognized that there are forged hadiths, identified them clearly and refused to given them even a minute aura of authenticity. In contrast, many Christians simply refuse to accept that early Christians forged entire books in the names of the disciples, in addition to making changes to other texts by adding, deleting or altering verses.

Edited by islamispeace - 20 December 2012 at 5:20pm

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

"The Quran makes it clear that Christians have strayed from Jesus' message."

and yet you say that the Qur'an promotes no prejudice...

The word prejudice (or foredeeming) is most often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. It can also refer to unfounded beliefs and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence." Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."

further:

Those who practice “institutionalized religion,” which focuses more on social and political aspects of religious events, are more likely to have an increase in prejudice. Those who practice “interiorized religion,” in which believers devote themselves to their beliefs, are most likely to have a decrease in prejudice.

Prejudice and discrimination are negative manifestations of integrative power. Instead of bringing or holding people together, prejudice and discrimination push them apart. Ironically, even prejudice and discrimination imply some sort of relationship, however. If there is no relationship people would be completely unaware of another person's or group's existence. When there is any relationship at all--even a negative one--there is some integration. (http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/prejdisc.htm)

You totally missed the point:

"When you read Ehrman, he clearly has an agenda. But if Muslims take what he[Ehrman] has to say to their logical conclusion, you would have to abandon Islam too. Why use a scholar who employs arguments which damage Islam?"

"the Quran has extant manuscripts from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar and the Quran has been memorized from its inception."

I find it amusing that people keep spouting this refrain without actually doing the research into the matter.There were 7 different ways of reciting revealed to Muhammad...Muhammad's followers could choose which to recite - so different people would hear different things, and they were different enough to cause fights among the followers. This is why there was so much confusion when it came time to create 'the book'... the Qur'an.There are also 3 different types of abrogation.

"Moreover, don't tell me about my own religion. Stick to your own. "

this is laughable...aren't you always trying to tell other people about their religion? Have you studied your own? Somehow I do not get the impression that you have.

Aren't there many muslims who are astray?Did the scriptures change? or is it about interpretation?As you can see just on these forums - there are many kinds of 'Christians',just as there are many kinds of muslims. It's not possible to say that all people who call themselves muslim, or who profess belief in Muhammad, are those of "the path of those whom Thou hast favoured", any more than it is possible to say that all 'Christians' are astray, or that all Israelites have earned the wrath of God.

The new user name?
‘Experiential” reminds me my position is based on relationship with The
Most High God. That the OT and NT principles I defend are more than just
a cerebral or intellectual thing but rather something experienced first
hand and daily.

From
looking at some of your other posts I notice you still use sarcasm and
subtle abuse as a strategy. I expect your posts to conform to the
cordial tone the moderators expect.

And I notice that you, like many of your brethren, are extremely thin-skinned! Let's see if you practice what you preach (not using sarcasm and "subtle abuse").

Originally posted by Experiential

In regards to Dr Puin and the
Sanaa manuscripts. You are confusing inspired with infallible and / or
inerrant. The Bible is inspired by God but written by man. Of course it
is not inerrant.

Thank you for admitting that the Bible is not inerrant.

However, you contradict yourself by stating that even though the Bible "is inspired by God but written by man" it is still not "inerrant". What would be the purpose of "inspiration" if the "inspired" text is still full of errors?

Also, what does "inspiration" have to do with whether the text has been preserved or not? Isn't that the central issue here? The evidence suggests that the Bible, the so-called "inspired" word, has been altered. So far, not one Christian on this forum has offered any evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Experiential

Correct me if I’m wrong but Muslims believe the Quran to be the literal, inerrant,
divine, perfectly preserved, and infallible word. If this is the case
then the issue of mans influence on the Quran compared to the Bible is
more a problem for you than me. The problematic facts remain. Mans
influence is obvious and this divine position just doesn’t hold to
modern skeptical criticism from people such as Dr Puin or Christoph
Luxemberg (a pseudonym of course due to his fear of being murdered by
some Islamofascist Jihadist.) The Quran, like the sun, sinks into a
muddy pond.

Do I detect a little "sarcasm and subtle abuse"?

Did you even read my response to you? Puin found no evidence of alteration. Yet you still continue to gnaw at that old bone. Please do share the examples of "mans [sic] influence" on the Quran. I have been asking you to provide these examples, yet so far you have ignored my requests. I wonder why...

For a Christian who admits that his own Bible is not the "literal, inerrant, divine, perfectly preserved, and infallible word" (how do the other Christians on this forum feel about this assessment, I wonder!) while criticizing the Muslim belief in the Quran's infallibility is certainly ironic. For sure, we believe the Quran is the perfectly preserved word of God. If you disagree, then please (for God's sake!) provide the evidence I have been asking you for, instead of making vague claims!

Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding
Ehrman. The point still stands. The Muslim lack of scholarly ability is
obvious. Why is Muslim scholarship so weak you have to rely on Western
traditions?

It displays the Muslim lack of freedom of thought and speech. Free thinkers in Islam don’t tend to avoid a fatwa for long.

What on earth does this have to do with the topic?

Either try to refute what Ehrman has said or admit that you cannot. Pontificating on unrelated topics such as the experiences of "free thinkers" is a desperate red herring.

Originally posted by Experiential

Ehrman when asked if he has
considered undertaking a critical assessment of the Quran is quoted as
saying something to the effect that he values his life too much to do
that. What does that tell you?

What does this have to do with Ehrman's views on the New Testament? Why are you so afraid to deal with his views? Why do you so desperately want to change the topic?

By the way, Ehrman has admitted that he does not know Arabic, so any attempt by him to comment on the Quran or Islam would be futile. He even admits that when he needed to translate a 13th century Arabic copy of a work of the 3rd-century Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, he asked a colleague to translate for him!

"I doubt if any of the New Testament scholars who refer to this statement of Porphyry's has actually read it, since it is, after all, in Arabic, and most New Testament scholars don't read Arabic. I don't either. But I have a colleague who does, Carl Ernst, an expert in medieval Islam." (Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 130)

Originally posted by Experiential

This thread is titled “Where is the Injil?”Ehrman
believes in the crucifixion of Jesus (unlike the Muslim view) and in
the appendix to “Misquoting Jesus” Ehrman states “Essential Christian
beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition
of the New Testament”. Obviously Ehrman would agree that the Injil
Mohammad had is essentially the same as the New Testament.

Either you are deliberately altering what Ehrman actually said or you are just repeating what you heard from someone else. He was answering a question referring to Bruce Metzger's assertion that the textual variants do not challenge "any essential Christian beliefs...". Here is what he actually said:

"What he [Metzger] means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that's true.

But I was looking at the question from a different angle. My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret passages from the Bible. And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means. Most textual variants...have no bearing at all on what a passage means. But there are other textual variants...that are crucial to the meaning of a passage. And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages." (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, pp. 252-253)

Nice to know that you can be counted on to give the full facts (sarcasm fully intented!).

It needs to be pointed again out that you have yet to offer a reasonable response Ehrman's claims about the New Testament. What are you afraid of?

Originally posted by Experiential

Your reply about the validity of
the New Testament and the number of manuscript copies is the usual
Muslim polemic. The NT reliability is radial not linear. Its not a
simplistic linear, telephone tag type of transmission but radial, like
spokes of a wheel. And not just one wheel but many, all of which
validate one another. The wide geographical spread of the texts combined
with the sheer number validate the reconstructed text. Currently we
have more than 120 manuscripts from the first 300 years. While this may
sound small it is significant, and the number is constantly growing.
Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The
Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of
1800 pages of text.

And your response is the usual Christian polemic, replete with special pleading. There are no 1st-century manuscripts, so the appeal to "120 manuscripts from the first 300 years" is deceptive at best. The rest, as I said, are from medieval times, and they are simply copies of copies. So, if the earliest copy was defective and it was this copy that the subsequent manuscripts were based on, then all of the manuscripts are defective by default. The only way to prove that they are not defective would be compare them either to the originals or to copies that were produced within a reasonable amount of time from the originals. Christianity has neither.

Originally posted by Experiential

Dating manuscript P52 ? I’ll see
your paleography expert and raise you one ! The point remains. For most
other ancient works, a far longer period of time elapses between the
originals and the oldest existing copies.

Huh?

The point, which you failed to respond to, is that P52 (which is a very small fragment) is not dated to the year 125, as Blomberg deceptively claimed. the usual date range is 125-150, but as Nongbri has stated, even a later date can be considered. Your response to this was...nothing except the same tired appeal to "other ancient works".

Originally posted by Experiential

You said “Moreover, the extant manuscripts show unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered (from 1st
Century manuscripts)”. The first Century NT testimony exists. It’s the
validity that you are questioning. Daniel Wallace has estimated that
there is only 2 percent minor changes (2 percent quantity of syntax, 5-6
percent meaning, but with no doctrinally significant changes) from the
earliest 120 manuscripts to those from the Middle Ages.

What? "First Century NT testimony exists"? That's a new one to me! Can you name such "testimony" from the 1st century?

Originally posted by Experiential

Anyway you are missing the point.
Compare this with the typical situation for other ancient histories and
biographies. The detailed life of Alexander the Great, for instance
which most historians believe can be reconstructed with a fair amount of
accuracy, depends on Arrian and Plutarch's late first and early
second-century biographies of a man who died in 323 B.C. So the history
of Alexander the Great is a leap of faith too? As are Greco / Roman
concepts of democracy, medical ethics and mathematics?

This argument is fallacious since scholars do not accept all the "details" of the ancient documents, such as the "Iliad" or sources on the life of Alexander the Great. For examples, scholar may agree on the central topic of the "Iliad", the Trojan War. They may agree that this war actually happened. But, they would not accept the claims of divine intervention in the war, would they? If you have ever read the Iliad, you would know that it speaks of various gods being involved in the war, such as Apollo and Aphrodite. These stories are not considered to be historically accurate. You would be hard-pressed to find a scholar who actually believes that the Iliad is historically accurate. The same can be said about Alexander the Great. Scholars would agree that he defeated Darius at the Battle of Gaugamela, but they would not accept some of the other "details" of his life, such as Plutarch's claim that he was descended from Hercules:

"It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother's side." [1]

Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding Bloomburgs comment on
the oral traditions and the so-called "hard sayings" of Jesus, you say
he is blowing hot air due to having no First Century manuscripts. In the
light of hermeneutical criticism Bloomburg is far more qualified than
you. Besides this is special pleading. There are no original copies of
your Quran.

Talk about "special pleading".

Regarding the Quran, there are numerous 1st-century manuscripts. In addition, the Quran was memorized by thousands of people. Your Bible has neither advantage! Sorry to disappoint you.

In terms of the Second Century Church
leaders quoting from earlier Gospel manuscripts you avoided the point.
Their testimony validates the earlier texts. Polycarp, Clement and
Ignatius are examples. From the 27 NT books they quote from 25.

The Ijil Mohamd had was the same.

I had a feeling you would refer to these non-Christian writers by copying the claims of Josh McDowell. Most other lay Christians refer to them as well, without bothering to actually do the research.

I will not waste time refuting your claims about each author, so I will refer you to a good refutation of this silly Christian polemic. Read Louay Fatoohi's "The Mystery of the Crucifixion", specifically pages 69-86. Fatoohi refutes the appeal to each author.

Edited by islamispeace - 22 December 2012 at 3:34pm

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.